Iran’s foreign minister has claimed nationwide protests in his country ‘turned violent and bloody to provide an excuse’ for US president Donald Trump to intervene.
Prior to now two weeks, greater than 500 protesters within the country have been killed during a bloody crackdown by government forces.
In response, Trump and his national security team have been weighing a spread of potential responses against Iran, including cyber-attacks and direct strikes by the US or Israel.
But when he were to launch strikes against Iran, Trump, who says he’s some ‘strong military options’, could see his actions backfire – as most Iranians are against any US intervention, in line with a global security expert.
Dr Dafydd Townley, senior teaching fellow in International Security on the University of Portsmouth, said Trump sees Iran as a serious destabilising think about the Middle East, which could explain his desire to get entangled.
‘He actually desires to have a more pro-Western or Western-leaning government in place,’ Dr Townley said. ‘But it surely could also be more helpful to the USA to pursue non-military interventions, reminiscent of technological or diplomatic support for the protesters.
‘There may be a big risk of pushing people to unite in Iran against an existential threat like the USA.
‘In the mean time, I don’t think anyone there views the U.S. as an ally, and military motion isn’t going to alter that.’
Dr Townley suggested the administration may very well be ‘emboldened’ by the success of capturing Nicolas Maduro, but they need to proceed with caution in terms of Iran.
‘There is a large difference between a covert Special Forces operation to kidnap a person and conducting strikes in Iran. Trump has said they’re “locked and loaded,” but able to do what, exactly?
‘It is kind of interesting that Trump, who has been very reluctant to get entangled in international causes before, has suddenly change into very vocal over the past two months.
‘Getting involved in Iran is not going to bolster his domestic support amongst MAGA Republicans.’
Dr Andreas Krieg, associate professor within the Department of Defence Studies at King’s College London, told Metro that if Trump decides to strike Iran, it could allow Iranian forces to ramp up their crackdowns on the protests within the name of national defence.
‘This might include wider lethal force, more arrests, and deeper information control,’ he said.
‘That said, strikes don’t robotically strengthen the regime. If the general public perceives U.S. motion as targeted and punitive against coercive organs moderately than society at large, the “existential threat” narrative may not translate into durable rally-around-the-flag effects.’
Dr Arshin Abid-Moghaddam argues: ‘The more the Trump administration and, specifically, Benjamin Netanyahu endorse the demonstrations in Iran, the more securitised the situation will change into.
‘Nevertheless, I don’t think the IRGC or every other organ of the Iranian state considers these demonstrations an “existential threat”. Neither do I consider that they need an excuse to quell them with violence, if obligatory.’
Is the Iranian regime collapsing?
Anahita Motazedrad, a visiting Senior Fellow in International Relations at LSE, told Metro the Islamic Republic is already behaving as if its grip on power is slipping.
She added: ‘A crackdown is in full force no matter external threats. They don’t need a brand new “existential threat” narrative to justify repression; they’ve already committed to it.
‘At the identical time, their capability to suppress dissent is more strained than it appears… the regime is internally vulnerable. Against this backdrop — and amid a nationwide rebellion — limited US pre‑emptive strikes are unlikely to unify the regime.
‘As an alternative, they might deepen perceptions of weakness, widen internal fractures, and potentially speed up the erosion of the IRGC’s control moderately than strengthen it.’
Even with historic protests over inflation, currency collapse, shortages, and perceived corruption in Iran, ‘collapse’ of the regime requires greater than hardship, Dr Krieg argues.
‘It requires fractures inside coercive pillars or elite defection dynamics that deprive the system of enforcement capability. At present, the IRGC appears cohesive, even when overstretched.’
Given the IRGC’s apparent strength, it seems more likely that the civilian governance would lose credibility within the aftermath of those protests, leaving the safety sector as certainly one of the one reliable parts of presidency, Dr Krieg said.
‘The leadership would likely default to repression and knowledge control to maintain its base intact,’ he explained.
Even when the regime were to collapse in consequence of those protests or potential strikes from the US, the world isn’t prepared for the facility vacuum it would depart, he said.
‘The largest danger isn’t only chaos in Tehran, but fragmentation within the provinces, score-settling amongst armed actors, and a scramble over strategic assets and prisons.’
What could US involvement mean after a regime collapse?
Ms Motazedrad told Metro that if the regime is toppled, the international community – and the US – wouldn’t wish to see the post-intervention chaos seen in countries like Libya and Iraq.
She explained: ‘That’s why the main focus is already on immediate diplomatic coordination, support for an Iranian‑led transitional process, and clear limits on external involvement.
‘The essential point is that Iranians themselves, not foreign powers, must shape the post‑regime landscape.’
Many Iranians have expressed fears that what happened in 1953 could occur again – a Western-backed coup, just like the one orchestrated within the 50s by the US and UK, could leave many Iranians with out a say of their future.
Dr Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, Professor in Global Thought and Comparative Philosophies on the University of London, said the coup which ousted Iran’s first democratically elected President is a trauma.
He added: ‘Nevertheless, the rhetoric of “freedom” is essentially discredited by the undeniable fact that US foreign policy within the region and beyond has never been geared to democracy and human rights.
‘The vast majority of Iranians distrust Netanyahu and Trump specifically, due to brutality of their policies in Gaza and the hypocrisy surrounding “human rights” in Western foreign policy discourse that the relative silence in regards to the each day killing of Palestinians reveals.’
Dr Bamo Nouri, a professor in International Relations on the University of West London, agrees.
‘When combined with more moderen regional experiences – Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria – the result’s a deep scepticism toward Western intervention,’ he explained.
‘On this context, it’s entirely plausible that Iran’s protest movement may deliberately distance itself from Western support – not out of hostility, but as a protective measure to preserve legitimacy and avoid being recast as a foreign-engineered project.’
If the regime is overthrown through these protests, Dr Nouri said a ‘precarious’ power vacuum would form.
‘The world is emerging from a pandemic, facing ongoing war in Ukraine, inflationary pressures, debt crises, and political fragmentation across the US and Europe,’ he said.
‘This isn’t 2003 -there is little public appetite or financial capability for large-scale reconstruction or prolonged intervention. With out a credible, indigenous transition process, the danger isn’t democratic renewal, but fragmentation, instability, and a repeat of the post-intervention chaos seen elsewhere.’
Get in contact with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
MORE: Hollywood actor brands Trump ‘the worst human being’ in Golden Globes rant
MORE: What’s the ‘exploding head’ weapon the US utilized in Venezuela?
MORE: Truck crashes into crowd of pro-Iranian freedom protesters in Los Angeles